2. Where a link between frustration and aggression does exist, it is unlikely to be spontaneous or direct

Who proposed that frustration caused by economic downturn would produce aggressive impulses that would be directed at vulnerable targets even when the group bears no responsibility for economic decline?

Hovland and Sears, 1940

How did Hovland and Sears (1940) support their proposition on aggression and economic downturn?

Statistical relationship between lynching of blacks in the South and economic downturns

What is the cathartic hypothesis?

When faced with a frustrating or irritating situation, we experience a build up of emotions (from day to day irritations) → creates imbalance

In order to get rid of the emotions, we need to act them out

Then we can return to our normal, balanced state

Some supportive evidence

What did Bushman, Baumeister and Stack (1999) find out about catharsis and aggression?

Evidence against cathartic hypothesis:

Found that angry participants who had read a pro-catharsis newspaper article continued to show aggression toward the person who had caused the anger even after engaging in the cathartic exercise of hitting a punching bag

Who developed the cognitive neoassociationalist model?

Berkowitz

What is the cognitive neoassociationalist model?

Frustration generates anger, which in turn prepares people to behave aggressively

This state will only lead to aggressive behavior if an appropriate environmental cue is present

What can be a cue for aggression in the cognitive neoassociationalist model?

Any object or person that has been linked repeatedly with anger and aggression in the past

Who conducted a study on the cognitive neoassociationalist model and what were the methods/results?

Berkowitz and LePage (1967)

To see if situational cues lead to aggression when a person is angry

Methods:

Male college students given varying numbers of electric shocks by a confederate as part of an ‘evaluation’ for a previously completed task

The more electric shocks, the angrier they reported being

They were then given the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the confederate by giving them electric shocks in return

Two conditions: situational cue with a shotgun and revolver and control with nothing

Results:

In non-angry participants, the weapons had no effect on the number of shocks administered

Angry participants gave more shocks in the presence of weapons

The weapons effect

What is the weapons effect?

Weapons provide the means to cause violence but they also increase the likelihood that an act of violence will occur

What is the excitation-transfer model?

Non-specific arousal in one situation can carry over into a completely different situation

We differentiate arousal by labeling it depending on external cues

Arousal caused by one stimulus is transferred and added to arousal elicited by a second stimulus

What is residual arousal?

Arousal from one situation carrying over into a completely different situation, inadvertently affecting our behavior in that situation

Crisp, Heuston, Farr and Turner (2007) performed what study on aggression?

Routes to aggression in soccer fans when their team loses

Methods:

60 male supporters of a small team were approached as they left the field following a loss

Each supporter completed a questionnaire asking how much they identified with the team, the extent to which they experienced emotions of anger and sadness as a result of loss, and if they intended to confront or avoid fans of opposing team

Results:

High identification = more likely to experience anger and to instigate a confrontation if they lost

Low identification = more likely to feel sad and avoid opposing team fans

Closely related to social identity theory and self-esteem

What is Skinner’s argument about changes in behavior in relation to aggression?

Operant reinforcement

The strength of the link between an event and behavior (stimulus-response) depends on whether the behavior is rewarded or punished

What is observational learning?

Learning how to behave by observing the way in which other people behave

What is the social learning theory?

Bandura (1977) proposed that people learn how to behave by observing the behavior of others

Based on operant conditioning principles of rewards and punishment shaping behavior

We are not born with innate behavior, we learn how to behave over time through observation

How did Bandura apply social learning theory to aggression?

Whether a person is aggressive in a particular situation depends upon the person’s direct and indirect experiences of aggressive behavior, and the outcomes of that aggressive behavior (reward or punishment)

Then people decide whether or not an act of aggression would have positive or negative outcomes

Who performed the study on learning aggressive behavior through modeling, and what were the methods/results?

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)

Methods:

Girls and boys between 3 and 5

Child settled in one corner playing

Male or female adult model to opposite corner with a toy set, mallet, and a Bobo doll

Aggressive model condition: adult spent a little time playing with toys and then spent rest of time physically and verbally abusing Bobo doll

Non-aggressive condition: adult ignored Bobo doll for entire session

The kids were then put in a different play room and told they could play with any toy they wanted

Results:

Children who had observed an aggressive model imitated the model

Boys showed more aggression than girls overall, but they were more likely to show aggression when the model was male, while the girls showed more aggression when the model was female

This shows that behavior is observed and copied selectively (some models had more influence)

What are two criticisms of social learning theory in relation to aggression?

1. It does not sufficiently take into account the role of individual differences in aggression that result from genetic, neuropsychological and learning differences

2. Many studies have not replicated the effect of televised aggression

Person-centered determinants of aggression

Gender differences

Alcohol

Personality

What is the hormonal explanation for gender differences in aggression?

Men = testosterone

Berman et al. (1993) – men with higher testosterone were more likely to show aggression during a competitive task

What is gender socialization?

Females and males are treated differently in society, resulting in different patterns of behavior

Who performed a study on gender differences and aggression, and what were the results?

Bjorkqvist et al (1992)

Boys tended to show higher levels of physical aggression than girls

There were not gender differences in verbal aggression

Girls showed higher levels of indirect aggression

What is indirect aggression?

Attempts to harm another person without a face-to-face aggressive encounter

Gossiping, spreading rumors, social exclusion

What traits did Caprara and colleagues (1994, 1996) identify with aggression?

Irritability

Rumination

Emotional susceptibility

What trait did Gleason and colleagues (2004) find to be reciprocal with aggression?

People who score low on agreeableness (those who place self-interest above getting on with others) have higher levels of direct and indirect aggression

Type A personality and aggression

May be particularly susceptible to aggression

What are Type A personality traits?

Ambitious

High achieving

Perfectionists

Always in a rush to achieve their goals and compete with others

Greater risk for coronary artery disease

What are Type B personality traits?

Relaxed

Uncompetitive

Creative

What hypothesis did Carver and Glass test in 1978, and what were the methods/results?

Type A personalities would show more aggression under threatening circumstances

Methods:

Male undergraduates were exposed to a confederate who threatened their sense of competence by denigrating their performance on a perceptual motor task

They were then given the opportunity to administer an electric shock to the confederate

Results:

Type A = larger electric shock if threatened

How is self-esteem implicated in aggression?

Low self-esteem has traditionally been considered to be a primary cause of aggression and social psychologists have used low self-esteem to explain the behavior of violent gang members, domestic violence and terrorists

Are the implications of low self-esteem in aggression correct?

There is little direct evidence for a causal relationship between low self-esteem and aggression

What do some psychologists say about high self-esteem and aggression?

People with high self-esteem are more likely to act aggressively because they are less likely to feel guilt about treating people poorly if they believe they are beneath them and they are more confident that their aggressive behavior will have positive outcomes

Who, specifically, suggested that people who have high self-esteem or egotism are more likely to show aggression? Why?

Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996)

Because they regard themselves as superior and will be more sensitive to threats to their superiority

What is the relationship between alcohol and aggression?

Many studies have shown that people under the influence are more aggressive

More alcohol = more aggression

Who conducted a study of the effect of alcohol consumption on aggression and what were their methods/results?

Lawrence and Andrews (2004) performed what study on crowds and aggression?

Looked at crowded prison

Inmates who experienced crowding were more likely to interpret behavior of others as aggressive

Changes in perceptions may contribute to the outbreak of aggression – reciprocity principle

What is the reciprocity principle and how is it related to aggression?

Universally held belief that we should treat others as they treat us

People are more likely to behave aggressively if they are provoked by the aggressive behavior of another person

How can noise influence aggression?

The presence of unwanted sound, especially loud or unpredictable, can lead to an increase in aggression

Increases physiological arousal and feelings of stress

How did Glass and Singer (1972) test the effects of noise on aggression?

Methods:

Had participants do a math task under noisy conditions or quiet

Results:

Noisy condition = more mistakes on proof-reading task and more frustration

What is relative deprivation?

Refers to a person’s perception that they are being unfairly disadvantaged, and believes they cannot improve this through legitimate means, when compared to other people or groups, they act aggressively

What happens when an individual/group is feeling relative deprivation?

They may behave aggressively (vandalism, assault, riots)

Cultural influences in aggression

Inter-cultural – easier to study

Western v. non-Western – controversial

Cultural differences in society

Southern and Western states of US are more aggressive than rest of nation

Nisbett and Cohen (1996)

What is the culture of honor?

General set of norms and values associated with a higher level of aggression in certain regions

What is a subculture of violence?

Subgroups within a particular society that hold a set of norms and values that endorse aggression and violence toward others

Aggression is directed at both outgroup and ingroup members

What is disinhibition?

A weakening of the normative constraints which usually lead to the avoidance of aggressive behavior

Two causes of disinhibition

Deindividuation

Dehumanization

What is deindividuation?

Process by which people lose their identity as an idiosyncratic individual and come to perceive themselves as an anonymous – and therefore less accountable – group member

What is collective aggression?

An act of aggression committed by a group of individuals, regardless of whether those individuals know one another

How does disinhibition and deindividuation factor into aggression?

They make the individual less accountable and anonymous in their acts, so there are fewer negative consequences for their actions

What did Leon Mann (1981) find out about crowd baiting and collective aggression?

He looked at 21 cases of crowds being present when a suicidal individual is threatening to jump off a building/bridge/tower

In 10 of the cases, the victim was baited (jeered at and encouraged to jump) by the crowd below

This is associated with the crowd being large, with a distance between them and the jumper, and occurring at night. All of these factors ‘deindividuated’ the crowd members

What is the emergent norm theory?

People behave aggressively when they are in a group not because they ignore the societal norm of non-violence, but because they adhere to a different group norm of aggression that may arise in a particular circumstance

This may be linked to the social identity theory in that when some group members begin to behave aggressively, other members may adhere to the new norm

Criticizes disinhibition/deindividuation

What is dehumanization?

Occurs when people fail to see others as unique human beings, reducing likelihood of empathy, guilt or shame and legitimizes actions

Deindividuation of the victim

Abu Ghraib (2004) found what about dehumanization and American soldiers?

American soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad by putting sandbags over their heads (anonymity) and treating them like animals (dehumanization)

The Rwandan genocide was a result of what?

Dehumanization of a group of people, justifying and legitimizing mass genocide

What is an explanation for the dehumanization of victims?

Delegitimization

What is delegitimization?

When a group is seen as threatening the norms and values of the ingroup, it may be placed in an extremely negative social category, allowing aggression against that group to be justified

Domestic violence

Verbal or physical aggression toward a relationship partner or other family member

People are more likely to be killed or physically assaulted by members of their own family than by anybody else

How many calls a year do police receive in the UK, reporting domestic violence?

570,000

Some factors believed to contribute to domestic violence

Increased amount of time spent with family members

Dependence of family

Physical proximity = targets of frustration and stress

Stress

Alcohol abuse

Previously abused individuals

Sexual aggression

Verbal or physical aggression toward someone that has a sexual component

Sexual discrimination/harassment

Unwelcome verbal, visual or physical conduct of sexual nature

Some factors believed to contribute to sexual aggression

Availability of violent porn

Zillman and Bryant (1985) performed what study on sexual aggression?

Male participants were exposed to low, medium or high levels of pornography

Their attitudes toward rape and violence were then measured

Results:

Participants who had viewed a large amount, and who had been insulted, viewed rape more tolerantly, recommending lower prison sentences for the crime

What study did Donnerstien and Berkowitz (1981) perform on sexual aggression and what were the methods/results?

Study on the effect of pornography on actual violence

Methods:

Female confederate insulted male participants

The male participants watched one of two versions of a sexually violent film

Then were then given the opportunity to behave aggressively toward the confederate who had insulted them

Results:

Compared to the control, men who had been insulted and watched either of the films administered larger shocks to the female confederate

When they had not been assaulted, they administered larger shocks to the female confederate if they had watched the version where the girl appeared to be enjoying the rape

What is the rape myth?

The inaccurate belief that women secretly enjoy being sexually assaulted

What is acquaintance rape?

Cases of rape in which the victim knows the perpetrator or is romantically involved with him

What is token resistance?

Controversial argument that women sometimes say ‘no’ to sex when they mean ‘yes’, increasing the likelihood of acquaintance rape as a result of a misunderstanding

When do people become terrorists?

Traditional view: targeting individuals and criminal profiling

What is the staircase to terrorism?

Moghaddam’s (2005) psychological model which may help to explain how and why certain individuals come to commit such acts of terrorism

It gives a broader perspective to conditions that lead to terrorism

Floors/levels of the staircase to terrorism

Ground floor – perceptions of relative deprivation

First floor – perceptions of procedural justice

Second floor – displacement of aggression

Third floor – adoption of an alternative moral code

Fourth floor – categorical thinking and perceived legitimacy

Fifth floor – the terrorist act

Ground floor in the staircase to terrorism

Perceptions of relative deprivation

Terrorists are the people who, regardless of how affluent or educated they are, perceive there to be injustices regarding their groups’ position in society relative to other groups

This floor has hundreds of millions of people on it

First floor in the staircase to terrorism

Perceptions of procedural justice

Important factor: how fair the individual perceives their government to be and how much of an opportunity they have to take part in the decision-making process or voice dissatisfaction

Individuals perceive there to be opportunities for them to individually move out of their deprived social group to a better position they are unlikely to go further up the staircase

Second floor in the staircase to terrorism

Displacement of aggression

Blaming other groups for their perceived problems because they cannot publicly voice their dissatisfaction on floor one

Third floor in the staircase to terrorism

Adoption of an alternative moral code

Recruitment into terrorist organizations

Accept an alternative morality

They are martyring themselves for a just goal

Fourth floor in the staircase to terrorism

Categorical thinking and perceived legitimacy

Recruits to terrorist organizations become parts of small cells

Encouraged to think categorically and highlight the difference between “us and them” to legitimize the terrorist goals

Little opportunity to escape

Strong control of individual actions

Fifth floor in the staircase to terrorism

The terrorist act

Civilians are categorized as part of the outgroup and the psychological difference between the ingroup and outgroup is exaggerated

The soon-to-be terrorist dehumanizes and delegitimizes the enemy group

Prosocial behavior

Actions that are generally valued by other people in a particular society

Examples of prosocial behavior

Friendship

Charity

Sacrifice

Sharing

Cooperation

Helping behavior

Acts where people voluntarily and intentionally behave in a way they believe will benefit others

Altruism

An act which benefits others but is not expected to have any personal benefits

Evolutionary perspective of prosocial behavior

We are biologically predisposed to help others

We are born with an in-built tendency to look after those around us, even if it does not have any obvious benefit for us

Preference for helping blood relatives because this is increase the chances for genes to pass on

Criticisms of evolutionary perspective of prosocial behavior

Cannot explain why we help friends and complete strangers; not just relatives

No empirical evidence

Cannot explain why people help in some circumstances but fail to help in others

Predicts that we should help blood relatives in all situations, but this is not the case (child abuse)

Social norms

Reflect what is considered normal and acceptable in a given group, culture or society

Common-held beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that have a powerful influence on how we behave

Three normative beliefs responsible for helping behavior

Reciprocity principle

Social responsibility

Just-world hypothesis

Reciprocity principle

We should help those who help us

Favor for favor

We are more likely to reciprocate to another person if they previously made a big, unexpected sacrifice for us

Social responsibility

We should help those in need regardless of whether they have helped us or are likely to help us in the future

We should help others when they are dependent on us

Social justice

We should help others who deserve help

Just-world hypothesis

Just-world hypothesis

General belief that the world is a just, fair place where people get what they deserve

Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people

Tendency to help others only if we believe their suffering is through no fault of their own

Criticisms of social norms in prosocial behavior

We may verbally endorse the idea of helping others, but we do not necessarily act on this endorsement (Teger, 1970)

Need for persistence (Warren and Walker, 1991)

What did Warren and Walker (1991) study about social norms?

Need persistence – how long help is needed for

People were more likely to donate money to a refugee family from Sudan when the family only needed assistance in the short term

Implies that internally held beliefs and situational factors play into whether people help or not

Modeling in prosocial behavior

Reason why we have a tendency to engage in helping behavior is that we have learned to do so by observing the behavior of others

Focuses on external factors

Bandura (1977) says what about modeling and social learning theory?

Modeling shows us what behavior is appropriate and increases self-efficacy but it only leads to helping if it had a positive outcome

Bryan and Test (1967) performed what test on modeling in prosocial behavior?

Methods:

Motorists passed a woman whose car had a flat tire

Modeling condition – another car had pulled over and appeared to be helping her change the tire, motorists then came across a second woman who car had a flat tire and wasn’t receiving assistance

Control – drivers saw no model prior to coming across the car with the flat tire

Results:

Motorists who had observed a model helping the woman were more likely to stop for the second than if they had not observed a model

Rushton and Campbell (1977) performed what test on modeling in prosocial behavior?

Methods:

Female participants interact with a friendly woman

Told they were participating in a study on social interaction (cover)

When the women left the lab, they were asked if they would make a pledge to give blood

Results:

When friendly woman (confederate) was asked first, 67% also agreed

When participant was asked first, only 25% agreed

Hornstein (1970) conducted what study on modeling in prosocial behavior?

Methods:

Participants observed another person returning a lost wallet

Person returning wallet was either pleased or displeased

Results:

When participants came across another a lost wallet, those who had observed the positive reaction were more likely to help than those who had observed the negative reaction

Bystander intervention

When an individual who has observed someone in an emergency situation makes the decision to actively help that person

Which case led to research in understanding why people help in some situations and not in others?

Kitty Genovese (1964)

Kitty Genovese’s case led to what two models?

Latane and Darley’s cognitive model

Piliavin’s bystander-calculus model

Latane and Darley’s (1968) cognitive model

A bystander goes through 4 cognitive stages before making a final decision about whether or not to help a person in an emergency situation

Stages of the cognitive model

1. Attend to the incident

2. Define the incident

3. Accept personal responsibility

4. Decide what to do

Attend to the incident (cognitive model)

Bystander needs to actually notice that an incident is taking place

Define the incident (cognitive model)

Bystander needs to define it as an emergency

Accept personal responsibility (cognitive model)

Depends on whether there are other people present who might deal with the problem instead and/or how competent the bystander feels in the situation

Decide what to do (cognitive)

If they have made it through the first 3 stages, the bystander must decide whether it is possible for them to help, and, if so, what they can actually do in the situation

Highly influenced by other’s behaviors

Latane and Darley (1968) tested their model in what way?

Investigating when and whether the presence of other bystanders would influence responses to an emergency

First experiment

Methods:

Completed a questionnaire on their own or with two other participants

Room filled with smoke to create emergency situation

In condition with two other participants, they were either genuine or confederates who ignored the smoke

Results:

75% of participants who were alone raised the alarm by reporting the smoke

38% with participants took action

10% with confederates took action

Second experiment

Methods:

Participants communicated with one another via microphones while in separate cubicle

Led to believe they were taking part in a group experiment consisting of two, four or six people

One participant said he suffered from epilepsy

Later, he was heard to be making sounds of distress and then fell silent

Results:

The more bystanders people thought there were, the less likely they were to help

85% helped if they thought they were the only other participant

64% helped with two others

31% helped with four others

Bystander apathy effect

People are less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than when they are alone

Processes underlying bystander apathy effect

Diffusion of responsibility

Audience inhibition

- Normative social influence

- Informational social influence

Diffusion of responsibility in bystander apathy effect

In some situations there is a clear emergency, but when others are present, people believe they are less personally responsible

Audience inhibition in bystander apathy effect

People are inhibited from helping for fear of negative evaluation by others if they intervene and the situation is not an emergency

Influenced by normative social influence and informational social influence

Normative social influence in audience inhibition

People want to go along with the majority even when they do not privately agree

Informational social influence in audience inhibition

If those around us appear to be unconcerned, we may conclude the situation is not a true emergency

Garcia, Weaver, Moskowitz and Darley (2002) performed what study on the bystander apathy effect?

Imagining the presence of others

Method:

129 undergrad students randomly assigned to one of three conditions

Group condition – asked in a questionnaire “imagine you won a dinner for yourself and 10 of your friends”

One person condition – “imagine you won a dinner for yourself and a friend”

Control condition – not asked to imagine

Then participants were asked how much time they were willing to spend on another experiment (0 – 30 min)

Results:

Participants who imagined a group of 10 people offered significantly less of their time than did people who imagined one person

No statistical difference between one person and control condition

Explained this by saying they were influenced by the accessible feeling of being in a group, which diminished responsibility and helping attitudes

Third experiment by Latane and Darley (1976) on the bystander apathy effect

Methods:

5 different conditions

1. Alone

2. Diffusion of responsibility – awareness of another participant

3. Diffusion plus social influence – awareness and observation of other’s behavior without being observed themselves

4. Diffusion plus audience inhibition – awareness, couldn’t see other but knew they could be observed

Takes into account the role of diffusion of responsibility in explaining bystander interventions, but also takes into account people’s physiological response when they witness an emergency situation

Three stages

1. Physical arousal

2. Labeling the arousal

3. Calculating the costs

Bystander calculus model (definition)

We respond to an emergency by feeling physiological arousal, labeling that arousal as personal distress or empathic concern, and then calculating the costs of helping versus not helping before making a decision on how to act

Physiological arousal (bystander calculus model)

Orienting action – lowered physiological response allowing us to assess the situation and decide how to proceed without panicking

Empathic concern – proposed by Batson and colleagues – as long as we believe we are similar to the person in distress and can identify with them, we experience empathy and focus on the person in need

Calculating the costs (bystander calculus model)

Consider the costs of helping and the costs of not helping in order to reduce their personal distress

When the cost of helping is low and cost of not helping is high, a bystander is likely to directly intervene in an emergency

Why does the bystander apathy effect occur, according to Piliavin et al?

The presence of others reduces the cost of not helping

Shotland and Straw (1976) performed what study on the bystander calculus model?

Methods:

Participants watched a videotape of a fight between a man and a woman

One condition: woman shouted “Get away from me! I don’t know you!”

Second condition: woman shouted “Get away from me! I don’t know why I ever married you!”

Results:

Participants believed the woman was in greater danger when fighting with a stranger

They were more likely to intervene when they observed a woman fighting a stranger because the costs of helping were lower and the costs of not helping were higher, than for the domestic fight

Primary goal of cognitive model and bystander calculus model

To explain the situational factors that influence helping behavior

Jonas, Schimel, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (2002) performed what study on prosocial behavior?

Fear of death from environmental cues

Study 1:

31 pedestrians stopped and asked to take part in a short survey about charities

Mortality salience manipulation: stopped in front of a funeral home or several blocks away from funeral home

Asked participants to indicate how beneficial, desirable and necessary they thought the two charities were

Results:

People were more favorable when mortality was made salient

Study 2:

27 American students in a lab-based test

Mortality salience condition: “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and “Jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die and once you are physically dead.”

Control condition: similar questions about dental pain

Then given the opportunity to donate money to charity (US or other country)

Results:

When people were made aware of their own death they donated significantly more money to the charity that would benefit people from the same culture as them

Behaving prosocially helps us to manage our fear of death

Terror management theory

Human beings have a strong survival instinct, but also possess the intellectual capacity to realize that one day we will die and we can become paralyzed with fear at the prospect of our own mortality. To stop this from becoming overwhelming, we hold a cultural worldview which provides a sense of meaning to the world and maintains our belief that our lives are important and significant

Perceiver-centered determinants of helping

Personality

Competence

Mood

Altruistic personality

While accepting that there are situational differences in helping behavior, this is the idea that some people might be innately more helpful across situations than others

What did Latane and Darley (1970) discover about personality and helping behavior?

No relationship between a host of personality traits and helping behavior

No effect of trustworthiness, need for approval on helping behavior

Berkowitz and Daniels (1964) said what about personality and helping behavior?

Social responsibility – helpers scored higher on a social responsibility scale than nonhelpers

Locus of control in prosocial behavior

Reflection of where they place the responsibility for the outcome of events in their lives

Internal locus = more likely to help

Dispositional empathy

General tendency to feel empathy and are more likely to help

Limitations of personality as a determinant in helping behavior

The evidence is correlation but cannot infer causality

Need to take into account situational influences

Competence

If a bystander feels they will be able to competently deal with an emergency, they will be more likely to help

Cramer et al (1988) performed what study on prosocial behavior?

Competence

Methods:

Registered nurses and non-medical students

Rigged accident

Results:

Nurses more likely to help because they perceived themselves as competent

What does perception of competence influence?

Increasing perceptions of competence can increase the probability of helping behavior

Baumeister et al (1988) performed what study on competence in prosocial behavior?

Methods:

Allocated some participants to leadership positions

Had a member of team choking on the intercom

Results:

80% of leaders offered assistance

35% of followers offered assistance

Acting as a leader increases the bystander’s perception of personal responsibility, eliminating the possibility of passing responsibility on to another group member

Asked participants to complete a task on which they were told they had either performed very well or very poorly

Other participants were given no feedback or did not complete a task at all

Results:

Participants who thought they had done well were more likely to help a woman struggling to carry some books than others

Affect priming model

Bower (1981)

When we are in a good mood, mood-congruent information in our memory is more accessible so positive thoughts and feelings, including a positive orientation to prosocial behavior, are more likely to be activated

Affects as information model

Schwartz (1990)

We use our current mood as a piece of information to help us understand how we feel about things in our environment

Regan, Williams and Sparling (1972) did what study on negative psychological states and helping behavior?

When participants had been led to believe they had broken an expensive camera, they were more likely to help another person who had dropped some groceries